Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on February 23, 2009June 27, 2018

Employers Eyeing Voluntary Benefits in Tough Economy

While laying off workers and freezing salaries are common ways that businesses facing a tough economy are trying to control costs, they also are critically evaluating the voluntary benefits they offer, experts say.


Employers are spending more time examining voluntary benefits, such as retirement health care and long-term disability, to possibly shift some company-paid benefits to voluntary status or trim voluntary benefits overall, experts say. Meanwhile, some employees are abandoning voluntary offerings in order to keep more money in their paychecks, they say.


“This is one topic our clients have in the air right now,” says Lale Iskarpatyoti, a Philadelphia-based group health care practice leader for Watson Wyatt Worldwide. “Everyone—employers and employees—is focused on keeping costs low.”


“Clearly, all of our clients are saying their priorities have changed,” says James Blaney, New York-based chief growth officer with Willis Group Holdings Ltd.’s North American benefits practice. “There is less disposable income for everyone; employers are carving out their core benefits programs and rolling back offerings.”


Ray Brusca, vice president of benefits for Towson, Maryland-based Black & Decker Corp., says he has heard that many companies are shifting core benefits to voluntary status, a trim-the-budget trend the power tool and accessory maker is not likely to follow.


“We are being told [by experts] that as an employer in these times, we need to be supplying more [voluntary benefits],” Brusca says. “There are people proposing that as a way for employers to eliminate or scale back their ERISA-type benefits and offer them on a voluntary basis. That’s just not us.”


Since the economy plunged deeper into recession in the fourth quarter of 2008, research on the effects on company-paid and voluntary benefits has been limited.


In December, Watson Wyatt updated its “Effect of the Economic Crisis on HR Programs” survey of 117 U.S.-based companies. In addition to layoffs, hiring and salary freezes, and cuts to merit-based incentives, 10 percent of companies were planning eliminate or trim their retirement plan contributions.


Early last year, New York-based MetLife released its sixth annual “Study of Employee Benefits Trends” of 1,652 benefits decision makers, which found that 55 percent of companies offer voluntary benefits and see them as ways to retain employees and keep employer costs low.


Late last month, Chicago-based outplacement and consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that 92 of 100 human resources executives surveyed said their companies had cut costs to cope with economic pressures, including some voluntary benefits.


Reducing costs appears to be the driving force for change in voluntary benefits, experts say.


Bruce Sletten, Fort Worth, Texas-based vice president for Aon Consulting Worldwide’s elective benefits practice, says voluntary benefits slowly are becoming a mainstay in employers’ benefit offerings, leaving employees paying more.


But particularly in the increasingly sluggish manufacturing and retail sectors, Sletten says employees are slow to embrace the voluntary plans.


Watson Wyatt’s Iskarpatyoti says enrollment in voluntary programs, such as legal plans and retirement programs, are at all-time lows as employers begin to offer scaled-back versions of core health care programs, such as consumer-driven plans, that typically take a bigger bite out of employees’ paychecks.


“[Employees] have to first find the money to pay for their health care and then continue to contribute to retirement,” she says. “These voluntary benefits are optional and have become less likely as a place [where] employees are spending their money.”


In turn, employers are looking at little-used voluntary benefits, such as those that provide legal guidance and some forms of disability, and cutting them from their benefits portfolio, experts say.


Although employers typically do not contribute to voluntary benefits, there are some administrative costs involved, Iskarpatyoti says.


“Employers are taking a long look at their menu of offerings, and where they are not seeing participation, they are cutting [voluntary benefits],” she says.


Eventually, employers could have difficulties meeting benefit providers’ minimum participation requirements, thus forcing them to halt some voluntary benefits even if an employer wishes to keep them, Sletten says.


The question remains: Are employees complaining? Not really, Blaney says.


“A lot of employers are preying on the fact that as long as employees have a job, nobody is going to complain as long as they still collect a paycheck,” he says. “Let’s face it: Workers are hearing a lot about reduction in workforce. We hear it every day. There is a general anxiety in the relationship between employers and their employees.”

Workforce Management Online, February 2009 — Register Now!

Posted on February 20, 2009June 27, 2018

Cut From Stimulus, E-Verify Likely to Resurface in Immigration Debate

When a bill weighs in at $787 billion, it’s hard to imagine anything being left out. But a provision that would have required companies receiving stimulus funding to sign up for a government-run electronic worker verification system was scuttled during House-Senate negotiations.


The measure could have increased the number of firms, especially in the construction industry, using the system. About 87,000 employers have signed up for the voluntary program, known as E-Verify, which checks new-hire information from I-9 forms against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases.


The author of the bill that established E-Verify was angry that it did not survive in the stimulus package.


“There is no assurance that the jobs created will go to American workers,” Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California, said on the House floor. He asserted that E-Verify was “stripped out of the bill without discussion or debate.”


Employer groups were relieved by the outcome. They have long criticized the system for being inaccurate, inefficient and unable to detect identity theft.


Despite its stimulus demise, E-Verify will remain on the congressional radar. The program is due to expire March 6. A separate provision that would have reauthorized it also was struck from the stimulus package.


But Congress will probably find a way to maintain the program until it can be addressed as part of a larger immigration bill, according to Hector Chichoni, a partner at Epstein Becker Green in Miami.


“It was removed [from stimulus] because it is going to come up in the same or similar form later in the year,” Chichoni said.


E-Verify proponents say the system confirms 96 percent of queries instantly and has an error rate of less than 1 percent. Employer advocates argue that the 4.1 percent error rate in the Social Security database could lead to millions of people being incorrectly ruled ineligible for work.


After the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, the Bush administration made E-Verify—and work-site enforcement generally—a central component of its battle against illegal immigration.


The Obama administration is likely to continue to support E-Verify, according to Chichoni.


“It’s the best the government can do,” Chichoni said. “They will never abandon this.”


But the government will now take a different approach to enforcement.


“They’re changing the strategy,” Chichoni said. “They’re going after the employer rather than going after the undocumented.”


It’s hard to predict when Washington will turn its attention to immigration reform. It was highlighted by Senate Democratic leaders as one of the items at the top of their agenda.


But the collapsing economy has been the focus of Capitol Hill so far. In the meantime, it’s not just E-Verify that will be in limbo. Technology companies probably won’t get the increase in employment visas that they covet.


Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel, expects that piecemeal immigration concerns will have to wait until Congress takes on comprehensive reform.


“It will all be dealt with at once,” he told reporters after a speech in Washington in early February. “I don’t see [immigration] being a big priority. They have bigger fish to fry.”


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on February 20, 2009June 27, 2018

Things Go Better With Cash-Balance Plans Coca-Cola Adopts New Pension

The Coca-Cola Co. is adopting a cash-balance pension plan for new and current employees.


Under the cash-balance plan design, employees will receive annual age-weighted credits equal to a percentage of pay. Those credits will start at 3 percent of pay and increase with age. Employees’ cash-balance plan accounts also will be credited with interest, though Coca-Cola hasn’t yet decided on the interest-rate formula it will use.


The plan will be offered to most U.S. salaried and hourly employees hired as of January 1, 2010. Current employees now in Coca-Cola’s traditional $1.5 billion final average pay plan will earn future benefits in the new plan starting January 1, 2010.


Coca-Cola’s move to a cash-balance plan comes at a time when many major employers are phasing out their defined-benefit plans and offering only defined-contribution plans. But Coca-Cola executives rejected such an approach.


“Offering a secure and risk-free benefit to employees is very important to us,” said Sue Fleming, director of global benefits at Atlanta-based Coca-Cola.


The appeal of a cash-balance plan for an increasingly mobile workforce is that benefits, which are based on career average pay, accrue faster than they do in traditional plans, in which employees have to work many years before accruing significant benefits, Fleming said.


Coca-Cola, which last year reported $31.9 billion in operating revenue—up from $28.9 billion in 2007—is the third major employer to adopt a cash-balance plan since 2006, when Congress passed the Pension Protection Act.


That broad pension funding reform law included provisions that let employers set up new cash-balance plans without fear of facing litigation. Several dozen employers who had established cash-balance plans years ago were later sued for age discrimination.


“The PPA took off the handcuffs of employers that wanted to use the plans,” Fleming said.


The other big employers that adopted cash balance since the enactment of PPA are: MeadWestvaco Corp., a Richmond, Virginia, paper packaging and office products company; SunTrust Banks Inc. of Atlanta; and Dow Chemical Co. of Midland, Michigan.


In addition, package delivery giant FedEx Corp. of Memphis, Tennessee, expanded an existing cash-balance plan to cover more employees.


The Atlanta office of benefits consultant Watson Wyatt Worldwide worked with Coca-Cola in designing the cash-balance plan.


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on February 19, 2009June 27, 2018

Appeals Court Rules Diabetes a Disability

Being an insulin-dependent diabetic can be considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal appeals court has ruled.


The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, declined to rule whether the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 would apply retroactively to the case of the diabetic metallurgy specialist who sued his former employer under the ADA.


The San Francisco-based panel ruled last week that a district court was wrong to grant summary judgment to Larry Rohr’s one-time employer—the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District—when Rohr claimed to be protected under the ADA. According to the appellate court judges, Rohr had “presented a genuine issue of material fact that his diabetes substantially limited his major life activity of eating and thus raised a genuine issue as to whether he was ‘disabled’ within the meaning of the ADA.”


Rohr was diagnosed as an insulin-dependent type 2 diabetic in 2000 while working for Tempe, Arizona-based Salt River. In 2003, he learned that he had been assigned to work for five to six weeks on a project that required him to travel away from his office. As his condition was deteriorating, he informed his employer that despite following what he called a “very demanding regimen” to control his illness, he needed further accommodations, including not being required to engage in overnight travel, to manage his diabetes.


Both Rohr’s physician and a physician employed by Salt River agreed that Rohr’s travel should be restricted. In 2004, Salt River informed Rohr that his restrictions, including the ban on overnight travel, were preventing him from carrying out the essential functions of his job and gave him the choice of finding another position within Salt River that would be consistent with his limitations; applying for disability payments; or taking early retirement.


Rohr asked his doctor to lift the travel ban, which the doctor did. Salt River’s doctor, however, thought the restriction should remain in place even though he had initially opposed the move. Rohr then applied for disability benefits and brought suit against Salt River, claiming that he had been discriminated against on the basis of both disability and age, although he dropped the age discrimination action.


A district court granted Salt River summary judgment in 2006, and Rohr appealed. The appellate court panel found that being insulin-dependent can qualify as a disability. It also found that Rohr was a “qualified” individual—one who can perform the essential functions of the job—under the ADA. The district had found that Rohr was not qualified for his position because he had not obtained a required annual respirator certification, which Rohr held was discriminatory in and of itself. The panel remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration.


In its opinion, the appeals panel said that the ADA Amendments Act, which was signed into law in September, “would provide additional support” for Rohr’s claims. The ADA Amendments Act instructs courts to read the ADA broadly. But since Rohr had provided “sufficient evidence” that he was covered under the ADA, “we therefore need not decide whether the ADAAA, which took effect on Jan. 1, 2009, applies retroactively to Rohr’s case.”


Filed by Mark A. Hofmann of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.


 

Posted on February 19, 2009June 27, 2018

Funding Plummets for GM’s U.S. Pension Plans

General Motors Corp.’s U.S. pension assets plunged to $84.2 billion as of December 31, making its two plans combined 87 percent funded, versus 124 percent funded a year earlier, according to a preliminary estimate the Detroit-based company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


The plans had total assets of $104.1 billion as of December 31, 2007.


GM “may need to make significant contributions to the U.S. hourly pension plan in the 2013-2014 time frame,” the filing states. It estimates the amount at $5.9 billion in 2013 and $12.3 billion in 2014. No pension contributions are expected to be needed before then, although it could prepay some of those contributions ahead of time, said Julie Gibson, GM spokeswoman. “I don’t think we will make any decision on that [prepaying] anytime soon,” she added.


The funding level of General Motors’ hourly plan fell to 83 percent as of December 31, from 120 percent a year earlier. Its assets fell 20.4 percent in 2008 to $55.5 billion. Its salaried plan’s funding level fell to 95 percent from 132 percent, and its assets fell 16.1 percent to $28.7 billion.


“General Motors is currently analyzing its pension funding strategies,” the filing states. “In view of significant negative asset returns in 2008 for most U.S. corporate pension plans, it is likely that the majority of U.S. corporations will re-evaluate funding strategies for their defined-benefit plans,” the filing states.


GM projects it would substantially repay the proposed $18 billion in federal loans by 2013 and repay a $16.5 billion federal preferred equity investment by 2017, “assuming no U.S. pension contributions are required,” the filing states.


But it also could request an additional $12 billion in federal loans, which would bring the total in loans to $30 billion, the filing states. “Additional financial support might be required in 2013 and 2014 if GM has to make contributions to our U.S. pension funds,” the filing states.


The “weakening financial markets have significantly reduced the value of GM’s large pension fund assets,” the filing states. GM pension “asset values have declined significantly over the last six months, especially so over the last quarter” of 2008.


Filed by Barry B. Burr of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.
 

Posted on February 19, 2009June 27, 2018

Investment Yields Keep Pension Funding Levels Low

Although higher bond yields in January helped to trim funding shortfalls in defined-benefit pension plans, most U.S. pension plans remained significantly underfunded, pension experts at two consultancies report.


The discount rates used by most U.S. corporations to estimate their defined-benefit pension plan liabilities grew last month in response to a 0.75 percent increase in long bond indexes, which were largely driven by increased Treasury bond yields, according to New York-based Mercer.


However, pension assets were still down significantly due to lower investment yields.


The Mercer report estimated that U.S. defined-benefit pension plans are about 75 percent funded, based on a funding deficit of $380 billion. It is based on an analysis of Standard & Poor’s 1,500 companies.


A separate report issued by Watson Wyatt Worldwide put the funding level at 74 percent based on a shortfall of $366 billion. The report is based on 450 of the Fortune 1,000 companies.


Pension funding levels are determined by comparing the value of plan assets with liabilities.


Alan Glickstein, a senior retirement consultant in Watson Wyatt’s Dallas office, noted that tougher funding requirements—mandated by the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which went into effect last year—may also have contributed to the ominous calculations.


“Although no recession comes at a good time, this recession couldn’t have come at a worse time for pension plan sponsors,” he said.


At year-end 2007, 46 percent of defined-benefit pension plans were funded at between 90 and 110 percent, and only 5 percent had funding levels between 50 and 70 percent, according to Watson Wyatt.


By contrast, at the end of 2008, 5 percent of plans were funded between 90 and 110 percent, and 61 percent were funded at between 50 and 70 percent.



Filed by Joanne Wojcik of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter


Posted on February 18, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Stop Chronic Misbehavior?

Dear Beleaguered:

There are definitely options when it comes to using pre-employment assessments that can help to identify individuals who are likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors.

These assessments fall into two major categories: overt integrity tests and personality-based integrity tests. Overt integrity tests commonly come right out and ask the applicant to answer questions about drug use, stealing, absenteeism and other things that have been shown to be directly related to workplace “incidents.”

Believe it or not, these tests do work, and there is a good bit of evidence to support their effectiveness. These tests work best for helping to screen out those individuals who are the most unsuited and most likely to have problems. While overt tests do work, they can be somewhat unfriendly to applicants since they ask sensitive questions and may send a message to the applicant that the organization does not trust them.

Personality-based integrity tests evaluate certain personality traits that have been shown to relate to counterproductive work behaviors and incidents in the workplace. These tests usually do not ask questions that are obviously about stealing or absence. Instead, they generally involve questions that focus on the trait of conscientiousness, as this has been shown to be a strong predictor of things such as theft and absence.

Which type of test is better?

The answer to that depends on your specific situation. Things such as the type of job, the specific problems you are having and your existing hiring process are all things to consider. I strongly encourage anyone evaluating a test to actually take that test and view their results. In this situation, I would make sure to take some examples of both an overt and a personality-based test and see which one feels most appropriate for your situation.

SOURCE: Charles A. Handler, Rocket-Hire, New Orleans, February 2, 2009

LEARN MORE: Please read Job Candidate Assessment Tests Go Virtual for additional perspective.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on February 18, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce Where Can I Find the Best Information to Begin a Compliance Audit?

Dear Overwhelmed:

Because retirement-plan administration becomes more complex every day, regular audits are well worth the effort. The Department of Labor, through its Employee Benefit Security Administration, provides a number of online tools that may be helpful in developing an audit.

These include a reporting and disclosure guide and information about fee disclosures, fiduciary responsibilities, qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) and many other topics. They can be found at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/.

Retirement plans also are subject to extensive regulations under the Internal Revenue Code, making it important to review plan operations from that perspective. Online tools, such as audit guidelines for examiners and tips on corrections and resources, can be found at www.irs.gov by clicking the link on “Retirement Plans Community.”

Even with the tools provided by the agencies, ensuring your plans are fully compliant is a difficult technical challenge. Some plan advisors have experienced staff and well-developed technical services, should you decide that the task requires help from outside your organization.

SOURCE: Deborah A. Powell, The Segal Co., Washington, February 12, 2009

LEARN MORE: Among a string of developments in the fast-changing arena of retirement plans is this: Participants in 401(k) plans now can sue their employers for losses.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on February 18, 2009June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Retain People Despite Being Unable to Raise Pay

Dear In the Doldrums:

Many companies are facing the difficult decision regarding the tradeoff between staying within lower budgets and rewarding employees to maintain morale and motivation. While doing performance reviews without pay increases is not ideal, there are ways you can communicate this without sending the wrong message and creating turmoil among your staff. Some important points to consider are:

  • Don’t hide the truth. Be open and honest about your current economic condition, and explain to your employees why pay increases are not being offered. If you hide the real reason, they may begin to assume another rationale was used to make the decision, and feel personal blame or resentment toward other members or parties within the company.
  • Be sure you place extra focus on praising each individual for their positive efforts and responsibilities they handled successfully. For those who have areas where improvement is needed, be ready with a detailed development plan that you, as their manager, will provide and/or coordinate. This will position the company as one that values personal and professional development and is willing to provide the time and resources to help each individual boost their performance.
  • Focus on the company’s future plans for rewarding their efforts. A goal-driven bonus, such as a certain level in sales, a specific number of outbound calls or company profits, will likely motivate them to work toward that goal. Not only will you postpone the expense, but because it is based on performance, it will occur only if performance increases, creating a true win-win situation.
  • Identify your top performers, or those employees who you feel are most important to the company’s future success, and consider sharing a more promising approach that involves higher rewards for these individuals. They will not only be the most disappointed about the news of no pay increases, but you also need to be most concerned about this group’s morale and continued commitment to the company.

While you may not be able to completely avoid any negative feelings or signs of disappointment, companies can take specific action to communicate a positive message during performance reviews. The important thing to remember, no matter what approach your company takes, is to keep an optimistic attitude and position yourself as a leader.

Giving your employees the feeling that you are unsure about the future of the company will be the most significant factor in an increase in turnover following this situation.

SOURCE: Jim Robins, TTI Performance Systems Ltd., Scottsdale, Arizona, January 20, 2009

LEARN MORE: Companies across varying sectors are encountering similar challenges.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on February 17, 2009June 27, 2018

Unions Fight to Control Piggy Bank

Amalgamated Bank, the nation’s only 100 percent union-owned bank, finds itself at the center of the crumbling marriage between garment workers and hotel employees. Each side is vying for control of the $4.5 billion-asset New York institution, which helps bankroll their organizing campaigns and other operations.


The cash-rich but shrinking Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees joined with the larger but financially challenged Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union in 2004 to create Unite Here, a 400,000-member group wielding dramatically enhanced clout.


But a recent power struggle seems to have doomed the merger, and garment leaders sued in federal court last week to dissolve it. The hospitality union’s leadership, which controls Unite Here’s general executive board, has rebuffed calls for a breakup, in large part to avoid losing access to the garment coffers.


Regulators with the state Banking Department have noted the bickering. “We are getting updates from the bank on this matter,” an agency statement says.


Caught in the middle is Derrick Cephas, chief executive of Amalgamated since 2005 and a former New York state superintendent of banks. Although Amalgamated helps fund Unite Here’s $49 million annual organizing budget—it was the source of nearly all of a $13 million dividend to Unite Here in 2007—the bank’s daily business is supposed to be separate from the union. Cephas intends to keep it that way. “What we do every day, how we manage our business—this conflict has zero effect on us,” he said. “We’ve made a huge effort to keep the bank out of this.”


Cephas has his hands full even without the union strife. His push last year to expand to 19 branches—including three new outlets in hotel-worker stronghold Las Vegas—and his diversification of Amalgamated’s historically conservative portfolio began just as the capital markets peaked.


Amalgamated lost an estimated $10.8 million last year, reports research firm Highline Financial. Total loan value grew 8 percent, to more than $2.4 billion, while the bank’s securities portfolio shrunk 22 percent, to $1.5 billion. Total deposits rose just 10 percent, to $2.6 billion, despite the new bank outlets.


Amalgamated delivered a -0.24 percent return on assets last year, down from 0.5 percent in 2007, according to Highline. An ROA of 1 percent or more is traditionally considered the benchmark for a well-managed bank.


The poor results could stem from $212 million in soured home equity loans bought from Countrywide Financial. Amalgamated filed suit in November, alleging shoddy underwriting standards. Amalgamated has also applied for an undisclosed amount from the federal Troubled Assets Relief Program.


The bank’s board offers additional challenges. As the union split widened in December, garment worker leader and Unite Here general president Bruce Raynor, who is also chairman of Amalgamated’s board, proposed corporate governance changes aimed at “ensuring the stability and good reputation of the bank.” His bylaw revisions included supermajority shareholder votes on “significant” transactions and staggered board elections.


President/hospitality John Wilhelm told union staff in a memo last month he was voted off the board after he discussed the bylaw move with other union leaders and declined to cooperate fully with an outside counsel’s investigation into leaks to the press on the governance changes.


Wilhelm accuses Raynor of leading a “witch hunt.” It gets uglier: Unite Here’s general executive board last week agreed to fund a lawsuit to reverse the bylaw changes.


“It never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that anybody would drag the bank into an internal dispute,” Wilhelm said.


Raynor, for his part, wants to team up with the powerful Service Employees International Union, led by Andy Stern. “Our intentions are to move towards an understanding and partnership with SEIU,” Raynor said. “You can’t hold hostage tens of thousands of workers that don’t want to be part of a union.”


Any split is likely to involve a large payment to the hotel workers, which could come from Amalgamated.


While Stern probably would love to get his hands on a new source of funding, an SEIU spokeswoman said the union is not taking sides.


Filed by Daniel Massey of Crain’s New York Business, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 … Page 591 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress